By Ivan Israelstam, Chief Executive of Labour Law Management Consulting. He may be contacted on (011) 888-7944 or 0828522973 or on e-mail address: ivan@labourlawadvice.co.za. Go to: www.labourlawvideos.co.za
The concept of insubordination means ‘refusal to obey a lawful and reasonable instruction’. Gross insubordination can be a ground for dismissal. However, the employer has the onus of proving that the act was in fact one of insubordination and that it was gross (very serious).
An employer’s belief that insubordination has occurred can easily trigger an emotional response in the executive who issued the instruction. This is because senior executives are often sensitive to their authority being flouted. Feelings of anger sparked by this can result in emotional and disproportionate construction of charges against the offender.
In the case of Wesley Neumann vs Western Cape Education Department (Lex Info 5 January 2026. Labour Court case No: C383/2023) a public school principal was dismissed for insubordination and bringing the name of the employer into disrepute. After the arbitrator upheld the dismissal the employee referred the matter on review to the Labour Court.
The incident that gave rise to this dismissal occurred during the height of Covid. Half the teachers employed by the school in question were absent due to Covid as were two of the three employees who were responsible for sanitising the school. The third employee responsible for sanitising the school refused to carry out this task due to a labour dispute.
People connected to the school were dying due to Covid. Protective equipment had not arrived at the school and staff members were pressuring the principal to protect them from the Covid danger.
Mr Neumann, the school principal advised parents not to send their children to school. He then disobeyed an instruction from his superior, the Education Department’s HOD to inform parents that they must get their children to attend school. Instead, he posted on social media a statement in which he said that his superior was guilty of Baasskap, was unintelligent and reckless. These acts formed the basis on which he was fired for insubordination and bringing the name of the employer into disrepute.
The Labour Court found that:
- Neumann’s comments were neither racist nor insubordinate. They amounted to insolence which was a lesser offence
- Neumann had misconducted himself during a situation of extreme pressure
- Disobeying the instruction to get pupils to return to school was not unreasonable under the circumstances where Covid was rife, and people were dying from it.
- Principals of other schools had publicly criticised the HOD and had not been disciplined for it.
- Neumann had an extensive service record
- Those who had worked most closely with him felt that the employment relationship had not been destroyed
- The employer had weakened its claim that the employment relationship had been destroyed by offering Neumann an alternative senior post
- The employer had not considered progressive discipline in this case.
The Court ordered the employer to reinstate the employee with three years backpay. Even if Neumann had only been earning R30 000 per month the backpay amount would have exceeded one million rand. And the cost of the drawn-out litigation would probably have exceeded that figure.
The outcome of this case highlights the need for employers to understand the folly of formulating charges while feeling angry and of exaggerating disciplinary charges. Decision makers also need to learn that, even where employees are guilty of misconduct there are many circumstances that will mitigate the seriousness of the offence.
The innovative video series WALKING THE LABOUR LAW TIGHTROPE assists employers to provide their managers with very inexpensive training that allows the managers to achieve the necessary knowhow at times suitable to their very busy schedules. Its 48 chapters, averaging 10 minutes in length each, can easily be watched at junctures when the manager has time. This greatly informative yet very engaging and practical video series provides crucial and user-friendly learning through the use of a stimulating, animated case study that runs throughout the 48-chapter series. Each chapter contains clear and important advice needed by workplace management on the basics of labour law over a very wide range of topics.
A further advantage is that the manager can, for a full year, easily go back to any of the 48 videos for purposes of refresher training or in order to access information on how to deal with a current workplace issue. This solves the problem of managers forgetting what they have learned.
This video series helps management to walk the shaky labour law tightrope and to run the workplace productively without falling into the labour law abyss.
To access our groundbreaking video series: WALKING THE NEW LABOUR LAW TIGHTROPE please go to www.labourlawvideos.co.za or contact Ivan on ivan@labourlawadvice.co.za
